the dark brown river

Saturday, November 26, 2005

geopolitics for dummies

we really need a text book - 'geopolitics for dummies.'

there are simple. if unwritten rules, in geopolitics -

in britain and america, and presumably in all democratically
organised countries, the first rule is that the levers of power
are largely the same for both outgoing government, and the
opposition, who are potentially the incoming government.
major potential political donors are also, to a large extent,
the same for both parties. bribes are only sure fire effective
for corporations who control both parties.

the second rule is that the crucial decisions for either group
of potential rulers should not be made prime issues in an
election, where they would be open to being resolved by the
masses, instead of by the informed elite.

thus, unless history develops a momentum of its own - (which
can happen) - you can take it that the 'issues' in an election
or the 'reasons' given for a war, are not the actual issues which
occupy the minds of the informed elite at that present moment,
or the reasons for which they are starting a war.

thirdly, the political mind does not do one thing for one reason -
the possible moves on the political or geopolitical chessboard
are each considered in the context of the whole game - not
for one reason, but, if possible, for all reasons. political questions
are open ended questions, not just narrow or academic questions.
political questions rarely have one narrow motive, or one answer.

to the political mind power is the ultimate currency. so the middle
east is not just crucial because oil makes internal combustion
engines work. it is crucial because oil's use, and the denial of its
use to others, is a lever of power. power is the gold standard of
the political classes, against which all actions are measured.

look at opium poppy cultivation. . .

heroin is bad.

the 'war on drugs' is good.

but if you are thinking geo-politically, afghanistan is central to the
asian landmass, heroin (opium poppy) cultivation is crucial to the
afghan 'warlords', thus heroin, like oil, is a lever of power in that
region. a lever that must be taken under control.

think morally - and poppy fields are bad.

think geopolitically - and you will begin to see why a gutless
little poodle like blair will go along with a revival of the heroin
trade. power is the only currency he values. power is the
only thing he respects. therefore poppy fields - good.

referring back to the second rule - do not expect to be asked
in a general election if you approve / disapprove of heroin.
you will almost certainly give the 'wrong' answer. as for the
attitude of the opposition - see the first rule, above.

if it is important, you will not be told. you will not be asked.

so, although you may not know the reasons for a particualr
war, by applying the geopolitical rules (above) you will know
that it is -
(a) all reasons.
(b) - other than the actual reason advertised.

got that ?

the players in the geopolitical game are seven, as follows.

1 supergangster. ( e g cheney, putin, kissinger, benedict 16.)
2 supergangstersidekick. ( e g libby, rove, card.)
3 wannabe gangster. ( e g blair, jose maria aznar, kerry.)
4 plain sidekick or kitchen cabinet. ( e g laura bush, alastair campbell,)
5 pathetic wannabe sidekicks, and patsies. ( eg oswald, geldof, bono.)
6 sucker victims. ( e g much of africa.)

7 irrelevent sidelined suckers - not in the game.

(you belong to category seven.) this also includes powerless
idealists, recreational moralists, and each nation's hairdressers
and taxi drivers - reputedly the only people who really know how
to run a country. (or one might assume, to hear them talking.)

sometimes the idealists become powerful and relevant. fine.
they then join one of the other six groups. . .

on the whole, group 7 contains some decent people. they like
to assume that their masters are similarly well motivated. thus
it is quite easy to sell them simple stories, for example that -

- oswald shot kennedy.
- pearl harbour was a surprise.
- the gulf of tonkin incident was another.
- two helicopters collided accidentally in the iranian desert on their
way to get carter the hostages (and thus the election.)
- a mad guy shot reagan.
- henry kissinger is a nobel peace prize winner.
- moderate fires can collapse steel framed skyscrapers.
- nineteen muslims, (at least six of whom later turned out to be
still alive ) planned and put into effect the 9/11 attacks.
- civilian aeroplane nosecones are strong enough to penetrate
three rings of buildings, concrete and specially reinforced.

but enough. you are beginning to get embarrassed, like the
decent person you are.

knowing that you find the crude realities of the geopolitical
and global financial games upsetting, the informed elite has
arranged, (by means of media manipulation, business
confidentiality, and national security classification), that
certain of the most glaring facts will be kept out of sight.
don't worry - far from being brutal - swiss and carribbean
bankers, bush sidekicks, and pentagon budget analysts, are
acutely sensitve to your finer feelings. they will do everything
they can to put you at your ease, even to the extent of telling
the occasional white lie.

oh, and i am only joking about the heroin. the war on drugs
will continue - do not fear - for 'as long as it takes.'

that will be just as soon as 30 percent of the afghans learn to
grow the barley for brewing 'miller genuine draft.'

Saturday, November 19, 2005

armageddon flu scam.

this must be nearly the perfect scam -

1 make a speech vowing to defend the nation against
natural or man made epidemics.

2 divert millions of dollars into research into (a) creating
a lethal flu, whether a novel or pre existing strain, and (b)
creating an effective antidote to the same.

3 buy shares in the companies likely to benefit from this.

4 now release the flu in an 'axis of evil' or rogue state.

5 now demand total united nations backed quarantine
of that state, effectively bankrupting it, more or less

6 make another speech announcing that intelligence
sources have intercepted a plan for 'suicide flu bombers'
to infiltrate the nation or one of her foreign allies.

7 offer the flu antidote to this nation (these nations) -

8 - at a price.

9 now release the flu yourself, having cleaned up on
the pharmaceutical share price. decimate those who
refuse to pay the price of protection. all those who have
either cooperated or received free vaccination are saved.
all enemies of the nation are wiped off the map.

10 repeat the dose, as required.

exxon-mobil to the rescue.

i am declaring infavour of record oil company profits.

what ?! follow this -

restricted refining capacity -
(a) raises the price of gasoline and refined products.

(b) thus encouraging conservation by the customer, and
possibly even lowering the rate of exhaustion of finite fossil

(c) also making alternative energy closer to economic viability,
and thus making more research into alternatives worthwhile.

(d) while the increased flow of money spent on oil, and
oil products, is recycled, and is not lost to the global

(e) finally, some of these enhanced oil refiners' profits
are at last being channelled into raising awareness
of the finite nature of fossil fuels. (and incidentally, thus
making the consumer more tolerant of high prices.)

sounds like a win-win-win to me.

neo-christian, neo-pagan.

i guess most readers like this thought -

The care of the Earth is our most ancient and most worthy, and after all our most pleasing responsibility. To cherish what remains of it and to foster its renewal is our only hope.
   - Wendell Berry

- but many thoughts and slogans carry implied, as well as explicit messages. here, the word 'responsibility' can be a substitute word for 'power.' ever heard a politician modestly accepting a new appointment ? he never says 'new power and authority' but he often makes a little speech about 'challenging new responsibilities'. for all wendell berry's image, his quote is about power, and contrasts with the one below -

"We abuse the land because we regard it as a commodity belonging to us. When we see land as a community to which we belong, we may begin to use it with love and respect." - Aldo Leopold

this guy sounds like wendell berry, but look a little closer and he is from a different political/religious/ecophilosophical tendency. whereas 'responsibility' is neo-christian - (we are separate from and in power over creation), 'respect' is neo-pagan, (nature is in power over us, because we are an integral part of nature).

i go with leopold. any other opinions ?

Thursday, November 17, 2005

autumn raspberries.

i don't work every day - today i was at home on the

cattle. i breed shorthorns crossed with irish moiled
cattle. the irish moiled (maol = bald ) has no horns
but is naturally polled. this save the vet's diesel and
the cost of cutting them off, as cattle with horns are
banned in irish cattle marts. the reason for keeping
these breeds is because the cattle here get only grass,
hay, and water, and are left out all winter. to bring cattle
in accumulates slurry, and this requires machinery ( i do
not have any) to spread back on the land. to quote the
late john seymour - this takes a solution and divides it
into two problems. operating a pre-industrial farming
system, i keep pre-industrial cattle. modern irish cattle
are fed, in part, from the american great plains, and if
these are destined to be turned over to biodiesel crops,
food grain importers will need to do some hard thinking.

lunch. i had a salad of grated turnip, carrot, chinese
cabbage, with potatoes - all from the garden - and dollops
of hellman's mayonnaise from tesco. ( i am not a saint )

to follow, the last of the autumn raspberries, plus sugar
(imported) and milk ( made with american soya and machine
made silage).

fuel. slightly damp turf contributes to global warming more
than to mine. you need sticks to get the fire going. logs are
a luxury - factor in the wages and the chainsaw maintenance
and your own timber is not an economical fuel. but i am only
gathering dead sticks for kindling. an hour or less gathers
a wheelbarrow load that lasts a week.

washing. my clothes drier is a long line in the garage. the
garage contains turf - no car. i would not mind only using
the washing machine on the days the wind blew, if that meant
we all survived on wind powered electricity. the three local
windmills are at templederry twelve miles away.

bicycle. the garage also houses my bicycle. it is a butcher's
delivery bike with basket. ( thurles c. 1950 ).

newspapers. daily newspapers cost about 6 x 1.50 = 9 euro
per week or about 80 euro every couple of months. i can get
two months' internet for 60 euro ( a couple of hours a night.) and
i still have the telly in the hotels and bars, often two tellies at a time.
the most consistently intelligent newspaper - for my interests, which
tend to be global, economic, geopolitical, historical - is the asia
times online.

but you cannot light the fire with the internet. i buy a sunday paper.
since my habits were revolutionised by the internet, i buy a
different newspaper every time. sunday telegraph - new york
herald tribune - irish independent - hello magazine - whatever.

my cat 'smudge' is semi self-sufficient. i have not told him the
news about american soya yet. perhaps we will have to milk one
of our own cows.

. . . all of this chat brought to you as a break from the usual gloom
of global politics and economics . . . .

opium poppy day ?

i see a lot of people on television wearing poppies in
their buttonholes. i presume this is to indicate support
for the afghan opium trade, which constitutes over 50%
of the country's g d p and, after a serious decline under
the taliban, is now thriving again ? the opium poppy farmer
were rescued by british and american subsidies and
encouragement to the many afghan farm families involved
in the business (30 percent of families ?). they now seek
ways to legalise the trade, making excuses that seem pretty
thin . . .

basically the drug business is big in afghanistan and big
in the world of money laundering and offshore banking,
and geopolitics was always a dirty business . . .

Tuesday, November 01, 2005

high noon at the helipad.

both of the basic 9/11 theories are defective - look at them.

1 bush did not know -

the video of the reading lesson in sarasota school makes
this hard to swallow. bush would have shown a stronger
reaction, and at the very least been anxious to conclude
the event and get out of the room. he dawdled as if he was
establishing an alibi.

2 bush knew -

this is also unsatisfactory. if bush knew he would have
rehearsed a reaction. even if he had decided to pretend
to fail to take in the significance of the first strike - he would
surely have been able to put on a more 'presidential'
reaction to the second strike.

so both basic theories have flaws.

3 the line of thinking that i have suggested pursuing, in a
couple of former blog entries, is that something went wrong
or ran late on the day. for example - both muslim conspirators
or pentagon conspirators would have wanted the strikes
to come in rapid succession. the muslims would fear an
intervention by F16s. for the pentagon, the longer that the
failure to intercept went on, the more they would have to
face the embarrassing question later of 'where were the F16s ?'

in the sarasota video bush looks exactly like a man at an
airport when the monitor displays the 'flight delayed sign.'

4 a fourth line of approach is possible -

suppose that 9/11 is a pentagon conspiracy with bush left
partially outside of the loop ? not enough notice is taken of
possible threats to bush on 9/11. . .

(a) the pentagon strike was only yards from the helipad that
bush was scheduled to land at on 9/11 at noon.

(b) bush seemed unafraid to remain at the sarasota school.
if anything, reluctant to get out and on board his plane.

(c) in spite of this laid back attitude, a serious search was
made of all luggage before air force one took off. this delayed
the take off. thus bush was more suspicious of internal betrayal
than of being ambushed by fanatical muslim attackers.

(d) no fighters came to protect air force one - so either the
orders which stood down the F16s in new york and washington
affected the whole country . . . this could point to bush himself
(if in control), or cheney if bush was not in control . . . either that,
or bush was afraid of internal betrayal and did not even trust the
fighter escorts available to him.

so there are elements of the 9/11 situation that suggest that
- even if the events stemmed from a pentagon, or some other
internal, conspiracy - bush was in a difficult situation in respect
of other figures in his administration.

what else points to this ?

bush twice claims to have seen the first plane hit the north tower.
suppose that he did ? suppose for example that he got a 'feed'
of a camera relaying pictures of the first hit, from the cheney
or rumsfeld bunker ?

there would have been no point in repeating a statement that
made nonsense to the public, unless it was some kind of veiled
threat in a power confrontation with a conspirator. suppose that
bush retained a video recording of a small plane hitting the north
tower. its existence would prove that someone with access to the
president had set up such a cameras and sent the 'feed'.

likewise the clearly false story of a threat to air force one from
someone with knowledge of official codes. this too comes across
as a shot across the bows to some other conspirator. there was
a threat, not from hi-jackers, but from within the system. why
put out / let out this, when so much else was 'blank-walled' ?

this line of thinking goes further - but a hint will be sufficient
to people who have a knowledge of 9/11. think it through.

somewhere in the background of what happened on 9/11 there
are indications of an intense power struggle, coup, or averted
coup. this may have been the tension known to exist between
the pentagon and the state department, or something similar,
or connected. this tension is internal to the united states
administration, and so intense that at some points george
bush and his father, george bush senior, have been on different
sides of the argument.

* * * * *

george bush hung around on 9/11 - apparently unafraid of
further attacks from muslim extremists - but also apparently
not fully within the loop with regard to any internal conspiracy,
if the other line is followed.

his indecision is marked - and this indecision does not fit the
theory of an 'attack on america.' but nor does it look like a well
rehearsed conspiracy moving to plan.

either the morning of 9/11 produced a serious glitch in a complex
plan, or there was some confrontation or negotiation between the
insiders on that day.

a review of the targets on 9/11 is instructive. the helipad at which
bush was to land, later. a 'feint' towards the white house by the
plane / missile which hit the pentagon. the building WTC 7 in
which the CIA, FBI, and SEC, had offices.

if 9/11 had elements of an internal coup, several groups of people
got to look down the barrel of the gun. there was even a media
rumour of a car bomb at the state department. quite a few people
must have been unsure for a time, on that day, just who the target
list included.